Smt. Hema Chauhan and others v. Imtiyaj Alam and others), by the
Case Details
SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-1278-2022 2025:CGHC:35945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1278 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 01.10.2022, passed in Claim Case No.64/2021 (Smt. Hema Chauhan and others v. Imtiyaj Alam and others), by the 5th Addl. Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal, Raigarh (CG)] 1 - Smt. Hema Chauhan W/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Jamuna Chauhan D/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Jyoti Chauhan D/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Ku. Janu Chauhan D/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Minor Krishna Kumar Chauhan S/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Chauhan, W/o Late Chakradhar Chauhan, R/o Village Ruchida, Post Office Putkapuri, Police Station And Tahsil Pusaur, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Imtiyaj Alam S/o Mansoor Alam Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Post Raisuna, District Kuonjhar (Odisa) Pin 758013. 2 - Raju Yadav S/o Vakil Yadav Aged About 35 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Post Office And Police Station Haldi, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh) Pin 277402 Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-1278-2022 3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office T I Mall Second Flour Bilding No. 9/11 Near Khandelwall Motors M.G. Road And Joning Indour (Madhya Pradesh) 452001 ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate : : : Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal 24.07.2025 (Order on Board) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 01.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No.64/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,31,880/- as compensation for the death of Chakradhar Chauhan, who was employee of JSPL Company. 2. Facts of the case, relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that on the date of occurrence i.e. 14.04.2021, while deceased- Chakradhar Chauhan was returning from his duty to his house at Village Ruchida on his motor-cycle and, at about 05 PM, when he reached near NH main road, Jorapali Chowk, the respondent No.02- driver, who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.OD-09-B-3954 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Thereafter, the appellants, who are wife, daughters and son of the Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-1278-2022 deceased respectively, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,14,83,360/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the deceased was 53 years of age and used to earn Rs.49,100/- PM from the work of Senior Forman at JSPL Company, Patrapali, Raigarh. The deceased used to maintain his family members including and, after his death, his family members have no any source of income to survive. Even otherwise, the deceased was aged about 53 years on the date of accident and was a able-bodied person and, on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 – owner and driver of the offending vehicle submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the aforesaid vehicle and the deceased has died on account of his own carelessness, moreover, on the date of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving license as well as the said vehicle (truck) was duly insured with respondent No.3, therefore, the liability of compensation lies upon the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Insurance Company has opposed the claim application stating that the said vehicle (Truck) was being used in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-1278-2022 Chakradhar Chauhan died in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.OD-09-B- 3954, which was driven by the respondent No.02 and owned by respondent No.01 herein. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, and after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.12,31,880/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.9,200/- per month which should be Rs.13,729/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the appellants have failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the Tribunal is justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-1278-2022 9. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Chakradhar Chouhan to be Rs.9,200/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.13,729/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) vis-a-vis Rs.1,64,748/- per annum. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. 1. Income 2. Deduction Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Rs.9,200 x 12 = Court Rs.13,729 x 12 = Rs.1,10,400/- (-) ¼ (Rs.27,600) Rs.1,64,748/- ¼ (-) = Rs. 82,800/- Rs.41,187) (i.e. = 3. Multiplier (x) 11 Rs. 1,23,561/- (x) 11 = Rs. = Rs. 9,10,800/- 10% (+) 13,59,171/- (+) 10% i.e. Rs. i.e. Rs. 91,080 = 1,35,917.1 = Rs. Rs.10,01,880/- 14,95,088.1/- 4. Future Prospect 1 2 3